Search

Environmental policy debates often get polarized along binaries of environment versus economic development or conservation versus rights. Sustainability scientists and practitioners generally suggest finding common grounds as a pathway for building consensus among the diverse perspectives involved in polarized environmental policy discussions. This paper takes a critical stance towards such calls for common grounds by calling attention to the implicit assumptions that underlie these discourses. We study the case of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in India, which has polarized the forest policy discourse between conservationists and rights activists in India. We examine scientific publications on the FRA using discourse and framing analysis and show that scholarly discourses on FRA lie along a spectrum characterized by underlying epistemic and normative practices. We identify five groups of scholars based on the unique positions they have taken on FRA: a) advocacy-centric, b) welfare-centric, c) community-centric, d) dialogue-centric, and e) techno-centric scholars. We find that negative framings of the forest dweller community lead to scientific endorsement of policy prescriptions that empower socio-political institutions that are external to these communities. We argue that scholarly calls for common grounds often assume uniform or neutral framings for the stakeholders involved. We conclude that recognizing the polarization spectrum in environmental policy discourses can help us move towards pluralistic approaches to environmental governance. • Scientific polarization on Indian forest policy discourses lies along a spectrum. • Epistemic and normative practices shape scientific positions on forest policies. • Negative framings of traditional communities tend to empower external institutions. • Calls for dialogue often do not specify framings for the stakeholders involved. • Recognize the polarization spectrum for enabling pluralistic environmental governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gray literature is increasingly considered to complement evidence and knowledge from peer-reviewed literature for science-policy processes and applied research. On the one hand, science-policy assessments need to consider a diversity of worldviews, knowledge types and values from a variety of sectors and actor groups, and synthesize policy-relevant findings that are salient, legitimate and credible. On the other hand, practitioners and scholars conducting applied research are affected by the time lag and biases of academic publication processes. Gray literature holds diverse perspectives informative for science-policy processes as well as practical evidence unfiltered by commercial publication processes. However, its heterogeneity has made it challenging to access through conventional means for a literature review. This paper details one endeavor within the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to review gray literature using Google's Programmable Search Engine. In the absence of a standardized approach, we build on the limited experiential knowledge base for reviewing gray literature and report on the potential applicability of our strategy for future reviews. Gray literature review results contrast findings of our parallel review of academic literature, underlining the importance of mobilizing different knowledge bases in science-policy assessments, evidence-based practices, and applied research. • We examine the integration of gray literature in the IPBES Values Assessment. • Open-access, customizable search engines enable targeted, systematic reviews of gray literature. • Gray literature differed from peer-reviewed literature in every aspect assessed. • Gray literature more often contained future visions with transformative potential. • Findings support uptake of gray literature in science-policy assessments and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice and fairness have become key considerations in sustainability pathways and nature-based solutions (NBS), following activists and critical scholars who have long argued that the urban environment is an inherently political space that requires an analysis of benefits and burdens associated with its existence, use, and access. However, what justice means and how it is expressed, recognized, or achieved is often implicit in the literature on NBS, even though underlying notions of justice shape the analysis done and actions proposed. This paper starts from the premise that justice knows many different interpretations, therefore warranting scholars and practitioners working on NBS to carefully consider the differences and frictions between competing meanings of justice. Drawing from the history of social and environmental justice theory, we give an account of some key justice dilemmas and discuss their tenets as it relates to the end, means, and participants in the making of justice. From this, we draw out questions and commitments academics and practitioners in the NBS space should grapple with more explicitly. We argue that the emergent tension between pragmatic policy approaches and critical theoretical engagement is hindering a version of NBS that goes beyond a reflection of the justice implications of NBS to ensuring that NBS contributes to the furthering of justice. We advocate for the inclusion of critical social sciences and humanities perspectives and approaches beyond tokenism to instead encourage ontological, epistemological, and political reflection of the work academics and practitioners do in the NBS space. • Distributive, procedural, recognitional justice are vital for nature-based solutions. • These dimensions of justice have multiple and conflicting meanings. • Political theory and philosophy help in understanding differences and conflict. • We offer five key justice questions for researchers and practitioners to reflect with. • Praxis and reflectivity are crucial to balancing act of practicing justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarship on the health impacts of resource extraction displays prominent gaps and apparent corporate and neocolonial footprints that raise questions about how science is produced. We analyze production of knowledge, on the health impacts of mining, carried out in relation to the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI), a university-based organization with substantial extractive industry involvement and links to Canada's mining-dominated foreign policy. We use a "political ecology of knowledge" framework to situate CIRDI in the context of neoliberal capitalism, neocolonial sustainable development discourses, and mining industry corporate social responsibility techniques. We then document the interactions of specific health disciplinary conventions and knowledges within CIRDI-related research and advocacy efforts involving a major Canadian global health organization. This analysis illustrates both accommodation and resistance to large-scale political economic structures and the need to directly confront the global North governments and sectors pushing extractive-led neoliberal development globally. Resumen La investigación sobre los impactos en la salud de la extracción de recursos naturales delata brechas importantes y huellas corporativas y neocoloniales, que plantean dudas acerca de cómo se produce la ciencia. Analizamos la producción de conocimiento sobre los impactos en la salud de la minería en relación con el Instituto Canadiense de Desarrollo y Recursos Internacionales (CIRDI, siglas en inglés), una organización universitaria que cuenta con participación sustancial de la industria extractiva y tiene vínculos con la política exterior de Canadá, la cual es dominada por intereses mineros. Utilizamos un marco de "ecología política del conocimiento" para situar a CIRDI en el contexto del capitalismo neoliberal, los discursos neocoloniales de desarrollo sostenible y las técnicas de responsabilidad social corporativa de la industria minera. Luego, documentamos las interacciones entre los conocimientos y convenciones disciplinarias de salud dentro de los esfuerzos de investigación y promoción relacionados con CIRDI que involucran a una importante organización canadiense de salud global. Este análisis muestra tanto la complacencia como la resistencia a las estructuras políticas económicas a gran escala, y la necesidad de confrontar directamente a los gobiernos y sectores del Norte global que manejan el desarrollo neoliberal impulsado por la extracción a nivel mundial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Future pluvial flood exposure related to vulnerability at two spatial scales • Parcel scale revealed more spatial bias and correlations than census block group scale • Future flood exposure was negatively correlated with building age at parcel scale • City historical context affected relationships between flood exposure and redlining Flooding occurs at different scales and unevenly affects urban populations based on the broader social, ecological, and technological system (SETS) characteristics particular to cities. As hydrological models improve in spatial scale and account for more mechanisms of flooding, there is a continuous need to examine the relationships between flood exposure and SETS drivers of flood vulnerability. In this study, we related fine-scale measures of future flood exposure—the First Street Foundation's Flood Factor and estimated change in chance of extreme flood exposure—to SETS indicators like building age, poverty, and historical redlining, at the parcel and census block group (CBG) scales in Portland, OR, Phoenix, AZ, Baltimore, MD, and Atlanta, GA. We used standard regression models and accounted for spatial bias in relationships. The results show that flood exposure was more often correlated with SETS variables at the parcel scale than at the CBG scale, indicating scale dependence. However, these relationships were often inconsistent among cities, indicating place-dependence. We found that marginalized populations were significantly more exposed to future flooding at the CBG scale. Combining newly-available, high-resolution future flood risk estimates with SETS data available at multiple scales offers cities a new set of tools to assess the exposure and multi-dimensional vulnerability of populations. These tools will better equip city managers to proactively plan and implement equitable interventions to meet evolving hazard exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Values have been recognized as critical leverage points for sustainability transformations. However, there is limited evidence unpacking which types of values are associated with specific types of sustainable and unsustainable futures, as described by future scenarios and other types of futures-related works. This paper builds on a review of 460 future scenarios, visions, and other types of futures-related works in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Values Assessment, synthesizing evidence from academia, private sector, governmental and non-governmental strategies, science-policy reports, and arts-based evidence, to identify the types of values of nature that underlie different archetypes of the future. The results demonstrate that futures related to dystopian scenario archetypes such as Regional Competition, Inequality, and Breakdown are mostly underpinned by deeply individualistic and materialistic values. In contrast, futures with more sustainable and just outcomes, such as Global Sustainable Development and Regional Sustainability, tend to be underpinned by a more balanced combination of plural values of nature, with a dominant focus on nature's contribution to societal (as opposed to individual) aspects of well-being. Furthermore, the paper identifies research gaps and illustrates the key importance of acknowledging not only people's specific values directly related to nature, such as instrumental, intrinsic, and relational human-nature values and relationships, but also broad values and worldviews that affect the interactions between nature and society, with resulting impacts on Nature's Contributions to People and opportunities for a good quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, ecosystem services have been applied to guide poverty alleviation and sustainable development in resource-dependent communities. Yet, questions of access, which are paramount in determining benefits from the production of ecosystem services, remain theoretically underdeveloped. That is, ecosystem assessments typically have paid little attention to identifying real or hypothetical beneficiaries and the mechanisms by which benefits may be realized. This limits their ability to guide policy and interventions at the local scale. Through a qualitative mixed methods approach, this article analyzes how access to different aspects of the production of provisioning services is negotiated in Bribri communities (Costa Rica) of small-scale plantain farmers with alternative modes of agricultural production. The analysis considers access to land, labour, knowledge, tools, markets, and credit. Our analysis reveals how institutions of access are organized differently in traditional vs. conventional systems of agriculture and how these shape power dynamics and pathways to well-being. We conclude that understanding institutions regulating access to ecosystem services provides more useful insights for poverty alleviation than approaches that assume homogeneous access to benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although power relations largely mediate access, use and management of ecosystems, they have not yet been considered in ecosystem services science. This omission limits the ability of the ecosystem services approach to guide environmental decision-making that can deliver ecological sustainability and socially fair outcomes. We propose three ways to address power relations more centrally: (1) analyze how power relations underpin the governance and institutions that determine access to and control over ecosystem services; (2) assess how labor relations around ecosystem services co-production impact human well-being; and (3) recognize the historical co-evolution of power relations and environmental change in shaping ecosystem services values. We believe that IPBES offers a unique opportunity to orchestrate transdisciplinary efforts to integrate power relations in ecosystem assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Resilience has rapidly emerged as a major focus of urban research and practice. • We know little about resilience frames across different urban contexts and actors. • In practice, most resilience frames do not align with notions of transformation. • Implications of cultural and political differences in frames deserve more attention. • Resilience practice needs to include anticipation, systems thinking, and equity. Urban resilience has gained considerable popularity in planning and policy to address cities' capacity to cope with climate change. While many studies discuss the different ways that academics define resilience, little attention has been given to how resilience is conceptualized across different urban contexts and among the actors that engage in building resilience 'on the ground'. Given the implications that resilience frames can have for the solutions that are pursued (and who benefits from them), it is important to examine how transformative definitions of urban resilience are in practice. In this paper, we use data from a survey of nine US and Latin American and Caribbean cities to explore how the concept is framed across multiple governance sectors, including governmental, non-governmental, business, research, and hybrid organizations. We examine these framings in light of recent conceptual developments and tensions found in the literature. The results highlight that, in general across the nine cities, framings converge with definitions of resilience as the ability to resist, cope with, or bounce back to previous conditions, whereas sustainability, equity, and social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) perspectives are rarely associated with resilience. There are noticeable differences across cities and governance actors that point to geographic and political variation in the way resilience is conceptualized. We unpack these differences and discuss their implications for resilience research and practice moving forward. We argue that if resilience is going to remain a major goal for city policies into the future, it needs to be conceived in a more transformative, anticipatory, and equitable way, and acknowledge interconnected SETS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Strategic scenarios are systemic representations of existing plans and diverse strategies. • Cities outline future goals and strategies, but conflicts among goals are often unexplored. • Strategic scenarios can be used to explore synergies and tradeoffs in a system context. • The strategic scenario used as a decision-support tool helps to improve sustainability and resilience planning. Cities face a number of challenges to ensure that people's well-being and ecosystem integrity are not only maintained but improved for current and future generations. Urban planning must account for the diverse and changing interactions among the social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS) of a city. Cities struggle with long-range approaches to explore, anticipate, and plan for sustainability and resilience—and scenario development is one way to address this need. In this paper, we present the framework for developing what we call 'strategic' scenarios, which are scenarios or future visions created from governance documents expressing unrealized municipal priorities and goals. While scenario approaches vary based on diverse planning and decision-making objectives, only some offer tangible, systemic representations of existing plans and goals for the future that can be explored as an assessment and planning tool for sustainability and resilience. Indeed, the strategic scenarios approach presented here (1) emphasizes multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary interventions; (2) identifies systemic conflicts, tradeoffs, and synergies among existing planning goals; and (3) incorporates as yet unrealized goals and strategies representative of urban short-term planning initiatives. We present an example strategic scenario for the Central Arizona–Phoenix metropolitan region, and discuss the utility of the strategic scenario in long-term thinking for future sustainability and resilience in urban research and practice. This approach brings together diverse—sometimes competing—strategies and offers the opportunity to explore outcomes by comparing and contrasting their implications and tradeoffs, and evaluating the resulting strategic scenario against scenarios developed through alternative, participatory approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Sustainable Future Scenarios (SFS) is a framework to co-develop positive futures. • SFS explores plausible and desirable scenarios of highly uncertain, long-term futures. • Participants examine tradeoffs among diverse sustainability and resilience pathways. • SFS enhances anticipatory, normative, and systems thinking in practice and research. Scenarios are a tool to develop plausible, coherent visions about the future and to foster anticipatory knowledge. We present the Sustainable Future Scenarios (SFS) framework and demonstrate its application through the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) urban site. The SFS approach emphasizes the co-development of positive and long-term alternative future visions. Through a collaboration of practitioner and academic stakeholders, this research integrates participatory scenario development, modeling, and qualitative scenario assessments. The SFS engagement process creates space to question the limits of what is normally considered possible, desirable, or inevitable in the face of future challenges. Comparative analyses among the future scenarios demonstrate trade-offs among regional and microscale temperature, water use, land-use change, and co-developed resilience and sustainability indices. SFS incorporate diverse perspectives in co-producing positive future visions, thereby expanding traditional future projections. The iterative, interactive process also creates opportunities to bridge science and policy by building anticipatory and systems-based decision-making and research capacity for long-term sustainability planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]